Aspect and Institutional Time II: Definitive Outcomes and Closure
C1
Authority
Download Free Turkish Lesson PDF
1. Function
This construction does not report an action. It reports an institutional condition: a completed outcome that the institution now exists within as an official reality.
Personal action (agent-centered):
“Sözleşmeyi feshettik.”
(We terminated the contract.)
Institutional state (condition-centered):
“Sözleşmeyi feshetmiş bulunmaktayız.”
(We find ourselves, institutionally, in the state of having terminated the contract.)
Strategic effect:
The sentence foregrounds the outcome, not the decision-maker.
Discourse shifts from “what we did” to “what is now the case.”
2. Forms
A) Core Formula
[Verb Stem + -mIş] + [bulun- + -makta + -yız]
B) Attachment Logic
The main verb takes -mIş:
“feshet-” → “feshetmiş”
The institutional frame is carried by bulunmaktayız:
“bulun- + makta + yız”
C) Pattern Examples
“almak” → “almış bulunmaktayız”
“tamamlamak” → “tamamlamış bulunmaktayız”
“feshetmek” → “feshetmiş bulunmaktayız”
3. Morphology
A) -mIş: Completed Outcome as Observable Fact
-mIş marks a completed event as an externally legible fact, not a narrated act.
It supports evidential distance: the result is visible, not personally claimed.
B) bulun-: State as Location (Mechanical Explanation)
bulun- shifts the subject from actor to location:
the institution is not executing the termination;
it is found inside the terminated-state, as if the state pre-exists the institution’s arrival.
Agency disappears not rhetorically, but structurally.
C) -maktayız: Continuous Institutional Present
-maktayız fixes the state as a stable, ongoing institutional reality.
It removes temporal looseness and signals official continuity.
Compressed meaning:
“We exist, as an institution, within the observable state of having completed X.”
4. Structural Guide
A) Semantic Assembly
[Verb + -mIş] → completed, observable outcome
[bulun-] → subject placed inside that outcome
[-makta-] → state held as continuous and official
[-yız] → institutional “we,” not a personal narrator
B) Why This Creates Irreversibility
This structure does not announce a decision. It documents a state.
Example timeline:
Day 1: “Sözleşmeyi feshetmiş bulunmaktayız.”
(Institutional announcement of state.)
Day 3: “Sözleşmeyi devam ettiriyoruz.”
(We are continuing the contract.)
This sequence damages institutional credibility because the first statement claimed to document reality, not propose a choice. Reversal implies the institution either misreported its own state or lacks authority over it.
C) Aspect Distinction (Not a Formality Scale)
“Yapmış bulunuyoruz.” → situational, potentially reversible presence.
“Yapmış bulunmaktayız.” → fixed institutional state.
The difference is temporal commitment, not politeness.
5. Usage
A) Usage Contexts with Rationale
Legal and contractual closure:
“Sözleşmeyi feshetmiş bulunmaktayız.”
→ Used when legal relationships must be documented as terminated states, not as actions open to negotiation.
Audit and compliance conclusions:
“İlgili süreci tamamlamış bulunmaktayız.”
→ Used to convert procedural completion into institutional record, signaling that the compliance window has closed.
Academic or institutional completion:
“Araştırmayı sonuçlandırmış bulunmaktayız.”
→ Used to present findings as finalized scholarly states, not ongoing inquiry.
Medical administrative closure:
“Hastayı taburcu etmiş bulunmaktayız.”
→ Used to certify patient status as clinically resolved, not conditionally discharged.
Military or operational withdrawal:
“Bölgeden çekilmiş bulunmaktayız.”
→ Used to frame withdrawal as an established operational state, not a maneuver.
Diplomatic rejection:
“Teklifi reddetmiş bulunmaktayız.”
→ Used to close negotiation space by presenting rejection as settled reality.
B) Armoring Phrases and Their Function
“İşbu saat itibarıyla” → temporal lock
“Yapılan değerlendirmeler neticesinde” → procedural shield
“Söz konusu” → referential precision
They collectively protect the seal from timing, motive, and scope challenges.
Examples
A) Scale of Closure
“Yaptık.” → personal, agentive.
“Yapmıştık.” → narrative sequence.
“Yapmış bulunuyoruz.” → professional status.
“Yapmış bulunmaktayız.” → institutional seal.
B) The Sovereign Seal (Scaffolded)
Simple:
“Sözleşmeyi feshetmiş bulunmaktayız.”
Armored:
“İşbu saat itibarıyla, söz konusu sözleşmeyi tek taraflı olarak feshetmiş bulunmaktayız.”
Fully sealed:
“İşbu saat itibarıyla, yapılan kapsamlı değerlendirmeler neticesinde, söz konusu sözleşmeyi tek taraflı olarak feshetmiş bulunmaktayız.”
C) Inline Deconstruction
Each added layer answers a potential challenge before it can be raised:
when, why, which, and under whose authority.
D) Official Denial of State (Negative Form)
“Sözleşmeyi feshetmemiş bulunmaktayız.”
Context of use:
A regulator claims: “Sözleşmeyi feshettiniz.”
Institution responds: “Sözleşmeyi feshetmemiş bulunmaktayız.”
This denies not the action, but the existence of the terminated state.
E) Institutional Status Audit (Interrogative)
“Sözleşmeyi feshetmiş bulunmakta mıyız?”
Example exchange:
Board member: “Sözleşmeyi feshetmiş bulunmakta mıyız?”
Legal counsel: “Evet, feshetmiş bulunmaktayız.”
The question audits institutional reality, not personal memory.
Notes
Institutional condition vs personal action
This form documents reality; it does not narrate intent.
Irreversibility and legitimacy
Reversal undermines the institution’s authority to define its own state.
Aspect over formality
The seal emerges from temporal fixation, not stylistic elevation.
Armoring: before vs after
Without armoring:
“Sözleşmeyi feshetmiş bulunmaktayız.” → open to “When? Why? On what grounds?”
With armoring:
“İşbu saat itibarıyla, yapılan değerlendirmeler neticesinde, söz konusu sözleşmeyi feshetmiş bulunmaktayız.”
→ pre-emptively answers those questions and closes discursive space.
Aspect and Institutional Time II: Definitive Outcomes and Closure – FAQ (C1)
Q: What does the structure “–miş bulunmaktayız” report in institutional Turkish?
A: It reports an institutional condition, not an action. The focus is on an established outcome that the institution now exists within as official reality.
Q: Why does this structure suppress the decision-maker?
A: The verb with –miş presents a completed, observable outcome, while bulun- places the institution inside that state. Agency disappears structurally, shifting discourse from “what we did” to “what is now the case”.
Q: Why is this construction considered irreversible?
A: It documents a fixed institutional state rather than a negotiable action. Reversing it later would undermine the institution’s authority to define its own reality.
